PDA

View Full Version : Columbia speculation and conspiracies



The Bad Astronomer
2003-Feb-04, 06:24 PM
Folks-

I have just locked a couple of threads about the Space Shuttle, because they were rampant speculations.

If you have some theory about the reasons for the Shuttle breakup, then I strongly urge you to find someplace else to air them out. This board is not the place for such speculations. I think we all welcome open discussion about what happened, which includes questions, reminiscences, and comments. But I will not abide speculation.

Diablo
2003-Feb-04, 07:05 PM
So then you want to discuss the crash but have locked a debate about it?

My beliefs which seem to not have been understood properly is that I believe that NASA planted the badge, helmet and body parts so that they could have a proper Memorial service. I see that the helmet has been scorched and yet the badge looks as if its been just taken out of the packet. It would be easy for NASA to plant such small pieces of evidence in such a large area. The reasons why NASA planted them is to put a bit of closure on the crash for the relatives. The crash debris which I have seen in the newspapers are cordoned off and yet still remained in their spot for over a day?

Incidently, a friend of mine saw some footage of the mission on a French TV news broadcast which showed a large crack down one side of the wings. He is trying to get a picture off the video for me so that I can post it here.

Heres another piece of interesting info that you guys may not have heard of... Im in the UK by the way, so I guess I wont be travelling to Texas!

The day before the tragic loss of space shuttle Columbia, BAe Systems, Britain's biggest defence contractor, 'ditched its share of loss-making space joint venture Astrium, transferring its remaining 25% stake in the business to rival European Aeronautic Defence and Space' effectively FOR NOTHING.

In an article in the Guardian on Saturday 1st February (p28), Richard Wray describes how BAe Systems completely dumped its space technology interests: "Controversially, the British defence contractor has also handed its Continental European rival control of Paradigm Secure Communications, a consortium which is close to concluding a 2bn communications contract with the Ministry of Defence. While BAe will continue to produce systems for certain satellites, the deal marks the end of the company's involvement with rockets and satellite platforms."

This turn of events followed problematic financial wranglings over the sale price of Astrium. The rival company Eads who will take over Astrium have a stake in Arianespace, who make the European Ariane rocket. So the implications are presumably centred within the European sphere of space and defence communications technology, and do not directly involve NASA or US military communications systems. Nevertheless, as confidence plummets in space tech, BAe's decision seems to have been timely to say the least.



Diablo

R.A.F.
2003-Feb-04, 07:21 PM
On 2003-02-04 14:05, Diablo wrote:
Incidently, a friend of mine saw some footage of the mission on a French TV news broadcast which showed a large crack down one side of the wings. He is trying to get a picture off the video for me so that I can post it here.


Lets see if I understand this...French TV has better video of the shuttle than NASA does? Is that what you are saying? Come on...give us a break.

Glad to see you back, Phil...looks like you'll be busy for a while just locking threads. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Silas
2003-Feb-04, 07:45 PM
snopes already has the photo of the shuttle with the crack in the wing. General opinion is it's bogus.

http://www.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000240

Why do people do stuff like this? As Jimmy Durante said, so many years ago, "Everybody wants to get into the act."

Silas

R.A.F.
2003-Feb-04, 08:10 PM
On 2003-02-04 14:45, Silas wrote:
snopes already has the photo of the shuttle with the crack in the wing. General opinion is it's bogus.

http://www.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=60;t=000240


I went to this site and toward the bottom of the page are pictures from KTLA 5 news out of L.A. I can't tell where this is located on the shuttle or even if it is the shuttle at all. Can anyone here help?

Glom
2003-Feb-04, 08:10 PM
On 2003-02-04 14:05, Diablo wrote:
So then you want to discuss the crash but have locked a debate about it?


Discussion is one thing. But spouting the usual NASA coverup BartSibrel is immature, stupid and extremely insensitive so soon after such a catastrophe. Your thread was not a proper debate.



My beliefs which seem to not have been understood properly is that I believe that NASA planted the badge, helmet and body parts so that they could have a proper Memorial service.


Your standpoint was not made clear in either of your posts in that thread. Phrases like, "Yet again the general public are thought to be complete idiots from those who run NASA!" do not seem to be conveying that NASA was trying to be sensitive by patronising anyone.



I see that the helmet has been scorched and yet the badge looks as if its been just taken out of the packet.


It most certainly does not. The people who found it reported it was cinged at the edges. Besides, you have yet to address Jay's point about how why a patch wouldn't suffer very much heating.



It would be easy for NASA to plant such small pieces of evidence in such a large area.


In broad daylight? In the middle of populated areas? Within a few hours of the burnup? It doesn't seem likely. If you wish to contradict me, please outline a procedure they would use to successfully accomplish this.



The reasons why NASA planted them is to put a bit of closure on the crash for the relatives.


Why go to all that trouble? Why not take a piece of debris and impress the patch into it? That would be a touching tribute and it doesn't require a coverup.



The crash debris which I have seen in the newspapers are cordoned off and yet still remained in their spot for over a day?


If it was cordoned off, how did the newspapers get to it?



Incidently, a friend of mine saw some footage of the mission on a French TV news broadcast which showed a large crack down one side of the wings. He is trying to get a picture off the video for me so that I can post it here.


I saw it in The Metro. It's already been linked. How does this support your attempt to dispute BA's decision to lock your thread?



Heres another piece of interesting info that you guys may not have heard of... Im in the UK by the way, so I guess I wont be travelling to Texas!


Blimey, not another one. Conspiracists seem to have infested the British Isles of late. That's not the asylum problem that Blunkett keeps on mentioning is it?



The day before the tragic loss of space shuttle Columbia, BAe Systems, Britain's biggest defence contractor, 'ditched its share of loss-making space joint venture Astrium, transferring its remaining 25% stake in the business to rival European Aeronautic Defence and Space' effectively FOR NOTHING.


So?



In an article in the Guardian on Saturday 1st February (p28), Richard Wray describes how BAe Systems completely dumped its space technology interests: "Controversially, the British defence contractor has also handed its Continental European rival control of Paradigm Secure Communications, a consortium which is close to concluding a 2bn communications contract with the Ministry of Defence. While BAe will continue to produce systems for certain satellites, the deal marks the end of the company's involvement with rockets and satellite platforms."


Start a new thread if you like.



This turn of events followed problematic financial wranglings over the sale price of Astrium. The rival company Eads who will take over Astrium have a stake in Arianespace, who make the European Ariane rocket. So the implications are presumably centred within the European sphere of space and defence communications technology, and do not directly involve NASA or US military communications systems. Nevertheless, as confidence plummets in space tech, BAe's decision seems to have been timely to say the least.


Why is confidence plummeting? Commercial interests don't involve a reentry so Columbia's destruction has little effect on commercial programs. But what exactly are you trying to imply about BAe Systems?

David Hall
2003-Feb-04, 08:21 PM
I'm wondering if that supposed wing photo wasn't actually from the MIR space station. It looks more like it came from something like that.

Edit: Ah, nevermind. I just scrolled down a bit further on the snopes forum page and saw the clearer photos. They aren't really cracks at all, but joints in the cargo bay doors.

http://home.socal.rr.com/picsgifs/images/columbia5.jpg

_________________
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business and we hope if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." -Gus Grissom

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2003-02-04 15:25 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2003-02-04 15:28 ]</font>

David Hall
2003-Feb-04, 08:33 PM
On 2003-02-04 15:10, R.A.F. wrote:

I went to this site and toward the bottom of the page are pictures from KTLA 5 news out of L.A. I can't tell where this is located on the shuttle or even if it is the shuttle at all. Can anyone here help?


Looking at this photo provided on the snopes forum, it appears to be the curved section of the bay at the very far right. Not actually the doors either, as I thought above.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/lms/video/fd13/pano4.jpg

_________________
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business and we hope if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." -Gus Grissom

<font size="-1">(Fixed image link)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2003-02-04 15:35 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Feb-04, 08:50 PM
On 2003-02-04 14:05, Diablo wrote:
So then you want to discuss the crash but have locked a debate about it?


A debate is based on facts, not innuendo and speculation.

In fact, I am locking this thread now. I won't let this turn into a discussion either, since it's not the place for it.